Interference No. 103,987
belated motion, to final hearing. They are the only issues
argued at this final hearing.
Motion under 37 CFR §§ 1.635 and 1.645
Junior party Lim’s belated motion for judgment was
filed on July 19, 1999. This was approximately 17 months
after the time for filing preliminary motions closed and
approximately 18 months after the decision in the Gentry case
was available on January 27, 1998. Thus, Lim’s motion for
judgment was belatedly filed. 37 CFR § 1.645 provides that:
Any paper belatedly filed will not be
considered except upon notion [sic] (§
1.635) which shows good cause why the paper
was not timely filed . . . .
Thus, a prerequisite for our consideration of Lim’s
motion for judgment is a showing of good cause for belatedness
on the part of junior party Lim. Lim’s argument respecting
good cause has two parts. The first part is an argument that
the decision in Gentry represented a substantive shift in
patent law with respect to descriptive support for the claimed
subject
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007